In Re: Vernon 4540 Realty LLC
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:21-cv-05289
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In re Vernon 4540 Realty LLC, Judge Briccetti denied Brent Carrier’s motion to stay the bankruptcy proceedings.
The ruling directly affected Brent Carrier’s request to pause the Chapter 11 bankruptcy case, related adversary proceedings, and related litigation, and it also affected the appellees opposing the stay.
What happened
In re Vernon 4540 Realty LLC concerns Brent Carrier’s request to pause the Chapter 11 bankruptcy case, related adversary proceedings, and related litigation while his appeal proceeded. Carrier was representing himself.
The court applied four factors for deciding whether to pause proceedings during an appeal: possible irreparable harm to the person seeking the pause, harm to others, the chance of success on appeal, and the public interest. The court said Carrier had not met the heavy burden required for a stay, substantially for the reasons given in an earlier ruling by Judge Drain.
The court denied Carrier’s motion for a stay. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti also certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Carrier permission to proceed without paying appeal fees.
The detailed version
- In Re: Vernon 4540 Realty LLC · No. 7:21-cv-05289
- Vincent Briccetti
- Jan. 18, 2022
Background
Brent Carrier, the appellant, was proceeding without a lawyer. By a letter dated December 20, 2021, filed January 5, 2022, he moved under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8007 to stay, or pause, the Chapter 11 bankruptcy case involving Vernon 4540 Realty LLC, its adversary proceedings, and related litigation.
The appellees responded on January 13, 2022. They attached a transcript of Judge Drain’s July 23, 2021 bench ruling in the underlying bankruptcy proceeding, which denied a substantially similar stay motion Carrier had filed on July 8, 2021.
Legal standard
The court explained that a person seeking a stay under Rule 8007 must show four things: likely irreparable injury without a stay, whether another party would suffer substantial injury if a stay were granted, a likelihood of success on appeal, and the effect on the public interest. The court described the burden as heavy and stated that stays pending appeal are exceptions granted only in limited circumstances.
Ruling
After reviewing the submissions, the court found that Carrier failed to meet the heavy burden on any of the four factors, substantially for the reasons discussed in Judge Drain’s earlier ruling. The court therefore denied Carrier’s motion for a stay.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It consequently denied in forma pauperis status—that is, permission to proceed without paying the required fees—for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.